[JumpCrisscross]

> most likely be limited to major cities youd imagine?

Cities have the bureaucracy to regulate. They also, currently, mostly hate Elon.

Tesla would be better placed trialling in suburbias, where accidents can be more-readily blamed on factors out of the company’s control.

[steveBK123]

To me, in terms of Tesla "putting their money where their mouth is" for automated driving, there are two things they've yet to do, and I'll believe it when I see it.

1) Take on any (even limited amount / limited use case / limited region) liability when FSD, the way Mercedes already has.

2) Actually launch Robotaxi for really real, at any sort of scale, the way Waymo has

Right now its the same situation its been for years & years - a lot of talk, and FSD cannot fail.. only be failed, by the driver.

That is - if it crashes, the driver failed to intervene. But if the driver intervenes & complains about frequency of interventions, the response is that the driver probably is too conservative and intervenes too often.. that the car wouldn't have crashed anyway. Circular logic.

[dragonwriter]

Actually, they've taken on liability just from shipping FSD, under the normal rules of legal product liability. They just didn't build a PR campaign around the fact that manufacturers are fully liable from product defects.

[steveBK123]

Their lawyers would not agree with you

[dragonwriter]

Their lawyers would in any specific case look to find a loophole providing an out, but I’m guessing that, even given Elon’s close association with Trump and the latter’s problems with selecting lawyers, Tesla probably hires lawyers that are familiar with the basic rules of product liability.